What are your expectations for this character in the upcoming Hobbit film?

Due to the absurd depiction of Sauron in Jackson's previous films, I am expecting great things from the culminating scene where the White Council chases the Necromancer out of Mirkwood. Basically, anything less than that giant flaming eyeball bobbing away (preferably being chased by Gandalf wielding a pitchfork) will be considered a disappointment.

They can't just have it disappear in yet another collapsing tower, can they?

Anything as long as it includes a lot of talking on the Necromancer's side, Benedict Cumberbatch has one of the top three voices in the world (in my humble opinion). In fact, I think the whole story should be told from either the Necromancer's or Smaug's point of view, having him narrate all of it.

Jackson did make a few changes from J.R.R. Tolkien's original The Hobbit novel, adding in characters like Saruman (Christopher Lee) from The Lord of the Rings trilogy into The Hobbit. In Lee's Christmas address (via TheOneRing.net), Lee revealed that Saruman won't be the villain but is instead a "good and noble man" in The Hobbit.

"Saruman, whom I play again, is indeed still Saruman the White, but he is a good and noble man and the head of the Council of Wizards, as he always was."

How Saruman goes from white to dark is tied to actor Benedict Cumberbatch, who has been cast not only as the dragon Smaug, but also as voice of the Necromancer, as the actor recently explained to Empire.

"I’m playing Smaug through motion-capture and voicing the Necromancer, which is a character in the Five Legions War or something which I’m meant to understand. He’s not actually in the original Hobbit. It’s something [Peter Jackson]’s taken from Lord Of The Rings that he wants to put in there."

Cumberbatch actually means the Battle of Five Armies, not "the Five Legions War," but in doing so, Cumberbatch has revealed a major link between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. See, the Necromancer is Saruman, or at least the dark spirit that inhabits him. In the book, Gandalf leaves Bilbo and the company of dwarves to attend to "important business" — driving the Necromancer out of Mirkwood. Gandalf does so before the Battle of Five Armies, but if what Cumberbatch says is correct, Jackson could be planning to have Gandalf's battle with the Necromancer, aka Sauron, at the same time of the Battle of Five Armies, or so Empire speculates.

I would hope for a struggle involving lots of Light and Saruman showing off his incredible intellect and power in the days before he was corrupted into breaking the Light, and maybe a hint of how he got to the stage he is at in Lord of the Rings. I suspect I might not like it completely, judging by what Cumberbatch says, though of course that could well be him being a bit sniffy and dismissive about the source material for his next film role

I do think it will involve heavy amounts of special effects as Cumberbatch and Chris Lee have already been filming and I think this was done in the UK, not in New Zealand, as Sir Chris Lee (not to forget his deserved title!) is now a very old chap (he is 90 in May) and I think flying all that way is probably out of the question. I have to confess I'm really looking forwards to this purely because I'll get to enjoy him as Saruman again.

I'm really hoping this is Cumberbatch not knowing what the Udûn he's talking about. Otherwise, I'm going to start banging my head against the wall now and now stop until There and Back Again comes out.

That's weird, why would Saruman be "bad" at that time anyway? There're 60 or so years for Sauron (the necromancer) to regain whatever corporeal form (an eye) that he's got and also corrupt Saurman.

It's all a bit odd, if you ask me - If Sauron shows at the Battle of the Five Armies, that wouldn't be the way I would've tied The Hobbit to the LoTR movies. I don't think there's any problems with showing whatever the Istari vs. Necromancer get on with, as that, imo, would be sufficient to make the tie-in, but I guess we'll find out!

That's weird, why would Saruman be "bad" at that time anyway? There're 60 or so years for Sauron (the necromancer) to regain whatever corporeal form (an eye) that he's got and also corrupt Saurman.

From what I remember of the LOTR timeline (the book) Saruman was already "bad", but in secret. He tried to delay the attack on Dol Guldur until he was pressed to allow it, to gain time for the Ring to reveal itself.

__________________What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?

Hmm! Well, I'll have to go back an look, then. I'm probably misremembering but I thought Saurman'd started down the wrong path with the palantir connection with Sauron, though I'm not sure when that could've occurred - prior to the jaunts Gandalf took during the Hobbit to thwart Sauron/Necromancer or after.

We received two looks in the LoTR movies of Sauron - an eye (vividly captured above as requiring massive sunglasses) and a huge dude in armor. I'm hoping Jackson can make as daunting an impression of the necromancer, but somewhere in between, maybe a heavy dark semicorporeal cloak or something, considering Sauron's power is rising, but not fully there yet.

I really don't want to besmirch the name of Benedict Cumberbatch, seeing as he's achieved the herculean task of making me enjoy Sherlock (the detective is one of my all time most hated literary characters), but I think he might not fully understand what he's talking about, he doesn't sound like a Tolkien fan

Me. I'm not very keen on detective stories as it is, but there's something about Sherlock that makes me want to slap him with a wet fish. Thankfully the version conjoured up by The Moff and Cumberbatch is much more enjoyable. I think the single minded smugness is more appealing when brought across by a younger actor. He's more...geeky than irritating. The old Jeremy Brett version from the early 80s epitomises exactly what I didn't like about the character - a snooty know-all. No, I don't like the recent Hollywood version, either.

Given this, I'm fairly confident Cumberbatch can give us a very good turn in The Hobbit despite clearly not being a fan at all. Even though I wanted Richard Wilson to voice Smaug...

Me. I'm not very keen on detective stories as it is, but there's something about Sherlock that makes me want to slap him with a wet fish. Thankfully the version conjoured up by The Moff and Cumberbatch is much more enjoyable. I think the single minded smugness is more appealing when brought across by a younger actor. He's more...geeky than irritating. The old Jeremy Brett version from the early 80s epitomises exactly what I didn't like about the character - a snooty know-all. No, I don't like the recent Hollywood version, either.

My favourite version of Holmes is the A.C.Doyle version.

Seriously. I hate all the movie Sherlocks. But I can't read any other "pure mystery stories" (I mean those that are only mystery, not mixed with adventure and etc) except for Doyle's, not after I fell in love with the Holmes style.

But going back to the original topic, it seems that there's a lot of confusion about Sauron's eyeball being the Necromancer, and even more that Saruman is somehow involved in Necromancy himself. Do they think that a big flaming Saruman's eyeball will be more appealing to the audience?

__________________What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?

Definitely. But the BBC series is a very good adaption. Much better than the new films, for example. Steven Moffat is definitely better at writing Sherlock episodes than Doctor Who (I don't know if others will agree with me, but I didn't think that the last series was that great. I mean, Matt Smith is good, and some parts are good, but some of the plotlines/twists were kind of pointless).

On a similar but more related note, I hadn't seen either of the two (Martin Freeman or Benedict Cumberbatch) in a main role before watching Sherlock, and I have to say that they are both good actors though it probably will be a bit weird to have the Smaug and Bilbo be the same as Sherlock and Watson respectively.

And anyway, despite this possibility of Sauron being at the Battle of the Five Armies, Tauriel, and the appearance of Kili, I'm still looking forward to the film.

Hmm! Well, I'll have to go back an look, then. I'm probably misremembering but I thought Saurman'd started down the wrong path with the palantir connection with Sauron, though I'm not sure when that could've occurred - prior to the jaunts Gandalf took during the Hobbit to thwart Sauron/Necromancer or after.

As I understood it, Saruman's corruption started before he got connected to Sauron via Palantir. It began when he learned enough about the true nature of The Ring and came to the conclusion that it can be found and used. He started desiring it. While he was not totally corrupt at the time of 'The Hobbit', he was already turning aside from his mission and, yes, delayed the attack on Dol Gudur under one or the other reason until Gandalf went there and proved that the Necromancer was Sauron. Then the attack was launched with his consent.

However, before he began chatting with the greater S, he was still able to return back to his path, but then he got trapped - all this happened a bit later as far as I concerned. Due to this reason, I wouldn't really mind such an interpretation, that at the time of 'The Hobbit' Saruman was still a noble wizard. Or may be he just came into temptation and desperately fought it. All that could make it more interesting, than just another battle.

PS Re: Mr. Cumberbatch. He's a good actor (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy) and I hope, he's going to read the book before he does the job. His interview made me to recall how Russian emperor Alexander III explained why he fired a minister:
'When Durnovo reports to me, he understands nothing, but I can understand the matter; when count Vitte reports, I understand nothing, but he understands it. And when it was Krivoshey, neither him no me could understand anything.' The latter can also be said about the interviewer and mr. Cumberbatch.

However, before he began chatting with the greater S, he was still able to return back to his path, but then he got trapped - all this happened a bit later as far as I concerned.

Was Saruman truly 'trapped,' or was this Gandalf's spin on the situation. When I read the conversation between the Grey and the White wizards, it sure seems that Saruman was a willing partner in Sauron's plans.

Regardless, can't wait to see how PJ spins it. Saruman with chronic conjunctivitis in one eye perhaps?

__________________

There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.

Was Saruman truly 'trapped,' or was this Gandalf's spin on the situation. When I read the conversation between the Grey and the White wizards, it sure seems that Saruman was a willing partner in Sauron's plans.

Regardless, can't wait to see how PJ spins it. Saruman with chronic conjunctivitis in one eye perhaps?

I totally agree that Saruman collaborated with Sauron willingly but I belive he had already had the way out no more. Like a trapped mouse who willingly eats cheese...

I totally agree that Saruman collaborated with Sauron willingly but I belive he had already had the way out no more. Like a trapped mouse who willingly eats cheese...

No, he had. Gandalf made a point of pointing that outduring his, Saruman's, Theoden's and etc little chat at Orthanc. If he would have repented, he would have been welcomed back. But you can't repent unless you really mean it, and Saruman did not, so he could not. But it's because who he was, not what situation he was in.

__________________What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?

Hi everyone!
I guess I'm just as excited about the movie as you are.
I even reread the book two weeks ago.
So, here's my question: who is that Necromancer?
I know that Benedict Cumberbatch is going to give him his voice. But I don't remember him in the book.

Hi everyone!
I guess I'm just as excited about the movie as you are.
I even reread the book two weeks ago.
So, here's my question: who is that Necromancer?
I know that Benedict Cumberbatch is going to give him his voice. But I don't remember him in the book.

The Necromancer was an awful reprobate who lived in a small cubicle deep in the Forest of Mirkwood. He was despised for dispatching black flying squirrels all over Wilderland who bore in their mouths advertisements for worthless products nobody wanted.

The Necromancer was an awful reprobate who lived in a small cubicle deep in the Forest of Mirkwood. He was despised for dispatching black flying squirrels all over Wilderland who bore in their mouths advertisements for worthless products nobody wanted.

The Necromancer was an awful reprobate who lived in a small cubicle deep in the Forest of Mirkwood. He was despised for dispatching black flying squirrels all over Wilderland who bore in their mouths advertisements for worthless products nobody wanted.

I expect to see something almost fully formed and man shaped, maybe wrapped in a hooded cloak. I really do not want to see that stupid Eye again. I believe that The Eye of Sauron was shown in the wrong context in the films, for a start Tolkien wrote that the Eye was within the Tower of Barad-dur. I believe that the Eye was merely a device, a physical representation of the will of Sauron. The Orcs saw it through his controlling will of them, it appeared in the Mirror of Galadriel because his will was stretching forth searching for Galadriel, yet both Pippin and Aragorn looking into the Palantir refer to seeing Him and not The Eye. In The Black Gate Is Closed Gollum says 'But master is going to take it to him, straight to the Black Hand. Later in the same chapter Frodo says 'It was Isildur who cut off the finger of the Enemy', and Gollum replies 'Yes, He has only four on the Black Hand, but they are enough', Gollum has seen the real Sauron. So for me, The Necromancer would have to be a figure and not the Eye.

__________________THE LORD OF THE GRINS:THE ONE PARODY....NOW ON FACEBOOK.... SOON TO BE A BOOK

I expect to see something almost fully formed and man shaped, maybe wrapped in a hooded cloak. I really do not want to see that stupid Eye again. I believe that The Eye of Sauron was shown in the wrong context in the films, for a start Tolkien wrote that the Eye was within the Tower of Barad-dur. I believe that the Eye was merely a device, a physical representation of the will of Sauron. The Orcs saw it through his controlling will of them, it appeared in the Mirror of Galadriel because his will was stretching forth searching for Galadriel, yet both Pippin and Aragorn looking into the Palantir refer to seeing Him and not The Eye. In The Black Gate Is Closed Gollum says 'But master is going to take it to him, straight to the Black Hand. Later in the same chapter Frodo says 'It was Isildur who cut off the finger of the Enemy', and Gollum replies 'Yes, He has only four on the Black Hand, but they are enough', Gollum has seen the real Sauron. So for me, The Necromancer would have to be a figure and not the Eye.

Yes, I agree that the Eye was more of a device. For me, it brought to mind 1984 and the Eyes of Big Brother. A symbol or metaphor for something which has eyes and spies everywhere. Though after reading about sanwe I have to think that there was also another layer to the meaning of the Eye, that Sauron had in some way mastered the ability to 'see' into the thoughts of others, whether through use of the Rings or not. The 'Eye' is also a good counterpoint to the Palantiri.

Personally, I'm quite keen to see Sauron as a real person and not just a symbol.

I'm also keen to see how Christopher Lee plays Saruman, whether he is as deep in the mire as he was during Lord of the Rings or not. I should hope he will be more intellectual and less corrupted, and maybe Lee will channel a little of his role as Lord Summerisle in The Wicker Man and make Saruman charming yet sinister.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eonwe

Definitely. But the BBC series is a very good adaption. Much better than the new films, for example. Steven Moffat is definitely better at writing Sherlock episodes than Doctor Who (I don't know if others will agree with me, but I didn't think that the last series was that great. I mean, Matt Smith is good, and some parts are good, but some of the plotlines/twists were kind of pointless).

On a similar but more related note, I hadn't seen either of the two (Martin Freeman or Benedict Cumberbatch) in a main role before watching Sherlock, and I have to say that they are both good actors though it probably will be a bit weird to have the Smaug and Bilbo be the same as Sherlock and Watson respectively.

I wish the Moff would give up Doctor Who to someone else. His efforts with Sherlock are fantastic (it's not ALL his work, it's also half the work of Mark Gatiss) and I think it suits his style much better. RTD handled Doctor Who better. It was epic without being ridiculous.

I'd been agitating for Martin Freeman to play Bilbo for years. He is perfect for the role. If you want to see him in some other roles that I thought exemplified how good he'd be for Bilbo then I recommend either the modern film version of Hitchhikers Guide or the BBC original version of The Office.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

That would be a really good insult.

A Big Flaming Saruman's Eyeball would also be a very good sweetie. Kind of like a jawbreaker, which takes hours to eat, with alternating layers of flavour, some of them horrible. I'd go into business making them but I'd get sued

A Big Flaming Saruman's Eyeball would also be a very good sweetie. Kind of like a jawbreaker, which takes hours to eat, with alternating layers of flavour, some of them horrible. I'd go into business making them but I'd get sued

I almost sprayed tea all over the screen I laughed so hard at this. "Some of them horrible." I'm suddenly reminded of Bertie Bott's Every-Flavour Beans (which I will never eat again - bad experience with one of the, shall we say, less-savoury ones).